An Orthodox Friend of mine argued with me that Jesus wasn't celebrating the Jewish Passover during the Last Supper. Upon reading all four Gospels it seemed pretty clear to me that he was...

Do Protestants see any reason not to think that Jesus celebrated Passover?

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I would say that based on the Gospel of John, starting in Chapter 13, that the passover had not yet started when that meal was served. The lack of a mention of a lamb being served at the meal would also not be passover.

An Orthodox Friend of mine argued with me that Jesus wasn't celebrating the Jewish Passover during the Last Supper. Upon reading all four Gospels it seemed pretty clear to me that he was...

Do Protestants see any reason not to think that Jesus celebrated Passover?

If you are arguing with an Orthodox, why are you asking about Protestants?

The Gospel of John makes it clear that he was not celebrating Passover. 19:14.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I would say that based on the Gospel of John, starting in Chapter 13, that the passover had not yet started when that meal was served. The lack of a mention of a lamb being served at the meal would also not be passover.

Yes, this appears to be the default Eastern position but John 13 seems to mirror passages in the other three Gospels (Mt. 26:1; Mk. 14:1; Lk. 22:1). The other three Gospels continues later in their chapters to show the arrival of passover and the preparation of the meal (i.e. lamb) by the Apostles.

Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover. (Mat 26:17-19)

And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? (Mar 14:12)

And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. (Luk 22:13-19)

When I first encountered this position, I was pretty shocked because it the first time that I thought I found a 'tradition' that might suggest to me that Orthodoxy is using a pious filter to pretext a greater distinction between Judaism and Christianity by reinterpreting the Sacred Text in this way...

I've read Orthodox Commentary. I just don't see 'any' reason to honestly interpret it that way.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

If you are arguing with an Orthodox, why are you asking about Protestants?

The Gospel of John makes it clear that he was not celebrating Passover. 19:14.

It seems to me that Orthodox are by and large 'scripted' in their replies... I hate to say it but I don't think they would respond critically even if it didn't make sense to them...

No disrespect intended.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Well it may be the "default Eastern position", but I come from a background of 47 years in the Protestant church and am not yet a member of the Eastern Orthodox. I simply took your question and looked up the verses in the Bible.

If you look at the verses you sited, the actual passover meal seems to be in the future. Jesus wants to eat the passover with his disciples, but the hour has come and he will not be able to. The Jewish ceremony of passover was a multiple day affair due to the amount of preparation required.

And of course if you look at the picture of the passover and the placement of the blood of the lamb, it would make sense that in its place (on the day of) we would have the new lamb and the blood on the Cross instead of the door frame. Jesus was the fulfillment of (and replacement) of the passover.

Well it may be the "default Eastern position", but I come from a background of 47 years in the Protestant church and am not yet a member of the Eastern Orthodox. I simply took your question and looked up the verses in the Bible.

If you look at the verses you sited, the actual passover meal seems to be in the future. Jesus wants to eat the passover with his disciples, but the hour has come and he will not be able to. The Jewish ceremony of passover was a multiple day affair due to the amount of preparation required.

And of course if you look at the picture of the passover and the placement of the blood of the lamb, it would make sense that in its place (on the day of) we would have the new lamb and the blood on the Cross instead of the door frame. Jesus was the fulfillment of (and replacement) of the passover.

Actually, it seems like the passover is just past... look at Luke 22...

Excerpts from Luke 22:"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover." ... They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, 'I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.' ... In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying..."

« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 02:57:25 PM by ignatius »

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

An Orthodox Friend of mine argued with me that Jesus wasn't celebrating the Jewish Passover during the Last Supper. Upon reading all four Gospels it seemed pretty clear to me that he was...

Do Protestants see any reason not to think that Jesus celebrated Passover?

I'm still a bit confused why a Roman Catholic would ask a question about Protestant belief on an Orthodox board

Or are you just trying to argue with ALL your Orthodox Friends ?

I want to know what those with an unbiased objective study of the scriptures think... I know what Catholics say and what Orthodox say... neither seems correct to me so I'm asking Protestants what they think... why is that a problem?

« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 03:00:32 PM by ignatius »

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Well it may be the "default Eastern position", but I come from a background of 47 years in the Protestant church and am not yet a member of the Eastern Orthodox. I simply took your question and looked up the verses in the Bible.

If you look at the verses you sited, the actual passover meal seems to be in the future. Jesus wants to eat the passover with his disciples, but the hour has come and he will not be able to. The Jewish ceremony of passover was a multiple day affair due to the amount of preparation required.

And of course if you look at the picture of the passover and the placement of the blood of the lamb, it would make sense that in its place (on the day of) we would have the new lamb and the blood on the Cross instead of the door frame. Jesus was the fulfillment of (and replacement) of the passover.

Actually, it seems like the passover is just past... look at Luke 22...

Excerpts from Luke 22:"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover." ... They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, 'I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.' ... In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying..."

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As I've said before, John's Gospel seems to leave out the 'entire' supper... I don't believe that should be used for us to fill in whatever we want. As I've stated already, Luke clearly points out that it was 'after' the Passover... John's Gospel seems to be missing this...

Excerpts from Luke 22:"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover." ... They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, 'I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.' ... In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying..."

« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 03:12:11 PM by ignatius »

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I've read Orthodox Commentary. I just don't see 'any' reason to honestly interpret it that way.

That's probably just because it is your "default position" to think in such a way.

Sure, I don't like to contradict Scripture... which is why I'm interested in 'everyones' position. I don't want to simply trust myself with the interpretation. I do know how I read it and, as it stands, I don't agree with the Orthodox Commentary.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I've read Orthodox Commentary. I just don't see 'any' reason to honestly interpret it that way.

That's probably just because it is your "default position" to think in such a way.

Sure, I don't like to contradict Scripture... which is why I'm interested in 'everyones' position. I don't want to simply trust myself with the interpretation. I do know how I read it and, as it stands, I don't agree with the Orthodox Commentary.

This is the carefully considered position of many Scripture scholars, regardless of confession!

I heard you but I continue to see no reason to interpret it in any other way that how St. Luke does...

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

With all the detail Luke provides there still seems to be a lamb missing from the meal described. Since the Jewish day began at 6:00pm, it would seem that they are eating a meal on the evening of the day the lamb would have been sacrificed after sunrise, then cooked. The lamb would have been eaten after the next sunset, the next day, which was the Passover in sight.

With all the detail Luke provides there still seems to be a lamb missing from the meal described. Since the Jewish day began at 6:00pm, it would seem that they are eating a meal on the evening of the day the lamb would have been sacrificed after sunrise, then cooked. The lamb would have been eaten after the next sunset, the next day, which was the Passover in sight.

So when we read this, you don't interpret 'So they prepared the Passover'... as preparing the lamb...? When Jesus says 'I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again....' you don't interpret this as 'after' he had just eaten the the Passover with his Apostles...? And so you don't interpret this... 'after the supper' as 'after' the Passover He had just eaten that He 'will not eat again'...?

Honestly guys and gals, I find this weird.

"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover." ... They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, 'I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.' ... In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying..."

« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 03:39:51 PM by ignatius »

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I interpret it based on John's account which gives further clarification as to the day.

Of course Mark also has it pretty clearly laid out in 14:1:

"Two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the chief priests and the experts in the law were trying to find a way to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. For they said, “Not during the feast, so there won’t be a riot among the people.”

As I've said before, John's Gospel seems to leave out the 'entire' supper...

Must be lying then, although I recall long hours standing while John 13-8 is read every Great and Holy Week. I think it starts (13:2) "And supper being ended..."

Quote

I don't believe that should be used for us to fill in whatever we want.

No, it's not. So I'm sticking with what the Church teaches.

Quote

As I've stated already, Luke clearly points out that it was 'after' the Passover... John's Gospel seems to be missing this...

Excerpts from Luke 22:"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover." ... They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, 'I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.' ... In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying..."

Actually, it seems like the passover is just past... look at Luke 22...

Excerpts from Luke 22:"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover." ... They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, 'I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.' ... In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying..."

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I interpret it based on John's account which gives further clarification as to the day.

Of course Mark also has it pretty clearly laid out in 14:1:

"Two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the chief priests and the experts in the law were trying to find a way to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. For they said, “Not during the feast, so there won’t be a riot among the people.”

See I look at John 14:1, the same as, Mt. 26:1; Mk. 14:1 and Lk. 22:1... a prelude to the actual feast.

Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people. Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them. And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money. And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude. Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. (Luk 22:1-7)

John's Gospel appears to be missing any detail of when the actual day came. Of course, he is missing the entire feast. I have always been taught to use what is more specific in the text to illuminate what is less specific, not the other way round.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Must be lying then, although I recall long hours standing while John 13-8 is read every Great and Holy Week. I think it starts (13:2) "And supper being ended..."

You seem to take personal offense to my inquiry. I'm sorry about that but I placed this in the Protestant section.

But you point out what I am talking about 13:1 to 13:2 before Passover and then it jumps to after the supper... strange.

Quote

No, it's not. So I'm sticking with what the Church teaches.

No, one is telling you otherwise. 'I' the one who is inquiring here. I'm not asking you to do anything. My OP wasn't even directed toward Orthodox.

« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 04:08:27 PM by ignatius »

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

An Orthodox Friend of mine argued with me that Jesus wasn't celebrating the Jewish Passover during the Last Supper. Upon reading all four Gospels it seemed pretty clear to me that he was...

Do Protestants see any reason not to think that Jesus celebrated Passover?

I'm still a bit confused why a Roman Catholic would ask a question about Protestant belief on an Orthodox board

Or are you just trying to argue with ALL your Orthodox Friends ?

I want to know what those with an unbiased objective study of the scriptures think... I know what Catholics say and what Orthodox say... neither seems correct to me so I'm asking Protestants what they think... why is that a problem?

I agree that this is a strange question. Do you want to know what our opinion is? Or do you want to know what our opinion of the various Protestant opinions is? You'll notice that there is no Catholic-Protestant Discussion board here. There's a reason for that. This forum is for the discussion of Orthodoxy, and this board in particular is for the discussion of Orthodoxy as it relates to the Protestant faiths. I think we need some clarification here, especially considering that you are neither Orthodox nor Protestant.

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Of course it was a supper in the perspective of Passover. It had the sorts of the Passover celebration, the breaking of bread, and the drinking of the cup, but it was not the actual Passover seder because it took place on Thursday evening, not Friday evening. The lams were not killed yet, according to St. John, the death of Christ took place the next day, Friday, while the lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple.

But all this is not the point. The connection with Passover is not the meal, but the sacrifice. The lambs being slaughtered in the Temple are of the Old Covenant, the Lamb being sacrificed on the cross is the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.

The Orthodox Church even goes on to teach the Last Supper is not the essence of the Eucharist. The full essence of the Eucharist is not our reenactment of a meal, but our participation in the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the sitting at the right hand, and the second and glorious coming. Eternal actions.

I guess what I am saying is that the old Passover was changed into a new Passover, a NEW PASCHA), (not a sader turned into the last supper).

On Easter we sing in church: Today Christ the Redeemer has been revealed to us as a Pascha, a sacred Pascha, a new and holy Pascha, a mystical Pascha, a most honorable Pascha, a blameless Pascha, a great Pascha, a Pascha for the faithful, a Pascha which has opened for us the gates of Paradise, a Pascha which sanctifies all the faithful.

I agree that this is a strange question. Do you want to know what our opinion is? Or do you want to know what our opinion of the various Protestant opinions is? You'll notice that there is no Catholic-Protestant Discussion board here. There's a reason for that. This forum is for the discussion of Orthodoxy, and this board in particular is for the discussion of Orthodoxy as it relates to the Protestant faiths. I think we need some clarification here, especially considering that you are neither Orthodox nor Protestant.

I'm not trying to push anyone away from the discussion but I'm familiar with Orthodox Commentary on this. It seems to revolve around 'leavened' bread which I find 'weird'.

The other Gospels seem to be very clear on the point that it was just after the Passover. To argue from the weakest Gospel to be authoritative seems to contradict the other three, I've never been taught to do that.

Also, my wife, my father and my brother are all Baptists. I get in Scriptural discussions often. I'm not unfamiliar with their point of view.

Why does John's Gospel trump the other three in your exegesis? I don't understand that...

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I interpret it based on John's account which gives further clarification as to the day.

Of course Mark also has it pretty clearly laid out in 14:1:

"Two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the chief priests and the experts in the law were trying to find a way to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. For they said, “Not during the feast, so there won’t be a riot among the people.”

See I look at John 14:1, the same as, Mt. 26:1; Mk. 14:1 and Lk. 22:1... a prelude to the actual feast.

Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people. Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them. And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money. And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude. Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. (Luk 22:1-7)

John's Gospel appears to be missing any detail of when the actual day came. Of course, he is missing the entire feast. I have always been taught to use what is more specific in the text to illuminate what is less specific, not the other way round.

Then you are going to have a problem with Luke, as he only speaks of one Passover, whereas St. John speaks of three in Christ's earthly ministry, along with other feasts that mark the three years of His public preaching.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Of course it was a supper in the perspective of Passover. It had the sorts of the Passover celebration, the breaking of bread, and the drinking of the cup, but it was not the actual Passover seder because it took place on Thursday evening, not Friday evening. The lams were not killed yet, according to St. John, the death of Christ took place the next day, Friday, while the lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple.

But all this is not the point. The connection with Passover is not the meal, but the sacrifice. The lambs being slaughtered in the Temple are of the Old Covenant, the Lamb being sacrificed on the cross is the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.

The Orthodox Church even goes on to teach the Last Supper is not the essence of the Eucharist. The full essence of the Eucharist is not our reenactment of a meal, but our participation in the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the sitting at the right hand, and the second and glorious coming. Eternal actions.

I guess what I am saying is that the old Passover was changed into a new Passover, a NEW PASCHA), (not a sader turned into the last supper).

On Easter we sing in church: Today Christ the Redeemer has been revealed to us as a Pascha, a sacred Pascha, a new and holy Pascha, a mystical Pascha, a most honorable Pascha, a blameless Pascha, a great Pascha, a Pascha for the faithful, a Pascha which has opened for us the gates of Paradise, a Pascha which sanctifies all the faithful.

It seems that Jesus has His last Passover among His Apostles... and yet He seems to elude to doing it again... until 'it' finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.

"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover." ... They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, 'I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.' ... In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying..."

Are you saying that He is 'closing the Old Law' (i.e. Sedar) to fulfill it with the Eucharist?

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Then you are going to have a problem with Luke, as he only speaks of one Passover, whereas St. John speaks of three in Christ's earthly ministry, along with other feasts that mark the three years of His public preaching.

How is that a problem? Luke seems to focus on 'this passover' because it is where the Eucharist (Last Supper) is instituted. My point is in John's Gospel this 'last passover' seems to be 'passed over'...

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I'm not trying to push anyone away from the discussion but I'm familiar with Orthodox Commentary on this. It seems to revolve around 'leavened' bread which I find 'weird'.

Noram I trying to push you away, but if you don't want to know our opinion, why are you asking us? You won't get "the Protestant opinion"--as you yourself ought to know, Protestants are too widely varying in their beliefs to categorise like that. So my best advice is if you want to know what your family members believe, ask them. I doubt you'll find many Orthodox who have studied heresies enough to be able to give you such a detailed explanation as you are requesting.

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

I'm not trying to push anyone away from the discussion but I'm familiar with Orthodox Commentary on this. It seems to revolve around 'leavened' bread which I find 'weird'.

Noram I trying to push you away, but if you don't want to know our opinion, why are you asking us? You won't get "the Protestant opinion"--as you yourself ought to know, Protestants are too widely varying in their beliefs to categorise like that. So my best advice is if you want to know what your family members believe, ask them. I doubt you'll find many Orthodox who have studied heresies enough to be able to give you such a detailed explanation as you are requesting.

Yes, that is easy path... just discard it as 'heresy' and you don't have to deal with 'real' people asking 'real' questions. Gotcha.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I'm not trying to push anyone away from the discussion but I'm familiar with Orthodox Commentary on this. It seems to revolve around 'leavened' bread which I find 'weird'.

Noram I trying to push you away, but if you don't want to know our opinion, why are you asking us? You won't get "the Protestant opinion"--as you yourself ought to know, Protestants are too widely varying in their beliefs to categorise like that. So my best advice is if you want to know what your family members believe, ask them. I doubt you'll find many Orthodox who have studied heresies enough to be able to give you such a detailed explanation as you are requesting.

Obviously he wanted the input and feedback of resident protestants here at OC.net. He wasn't asking you (the Doxies) he was asking us (the Protties on OC.net). Is it really that hard to comprehend? Why are you giving the guy down the road and tried to exclude protestants being sought for input???

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

I'm not trying to push anyone away from the discussion but I'm familiar with Orthodox Commentary on this. It seems to revolve around 'leavened' bread which I find 'weird'.

Noram I trying to push you away, but if you don't want to know our opinion, why are you asking us? You won't get "the Protestant opinion"--as you yourself ought to know, Protestants are too widely varying in their beliefs to categorise like that. So my best advice is if you want to know what your family members believe, ask them. I doubt you'll find many Orthodox who have studied heresies enough to be able to give you such a detailed explanation as you are requesting.

Yes, that is easy path... just discard it as 'heresy' and you don't have to deal with 'real' people asking 'real' questions. Gotcha.

Oh, we like real people to ask us real questions about the Orthodox Faith. However, we generally stay away from playing arbiter to which heresy is more correct.

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

To argue from the weakest Gospel to be authoritative seems to contradict the other three, I've never been taught to do that.

"From the weakest Gospel?" Is that really necessary? How about "from the least detailed about the meal" or "from the most ambiguous account IMO?" You're not going to encourage meaningful discussion on the topic with comments like "the weakest Gospel."

Why does John's Gospel trump the other three in your exegesis? I don't understand that...

I suppose John's Gospel gets a lot of respect from the Orthodox because:

1. It starts the earliest ("In the beginning") and ends the latest ("If it is my will that he remain until I come...") of the Gospels (heck, it starts earlier than Genesis).2. It's the Gospel of Love3. It seems to be written to supplement the other accounts, adding in words and actions that were left out by the other Gospels.4. It is well used by the early Church writers and Fathers.5. It focuses on our relationship with God (very ethereal, no? it's why he gets the eagle symbol)

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I'm not trying to push anyone away from the discussion but I'm familiar with Orthodox Commentary on this. It seems to revolve around 'leavened' bread which I find 'weird'.

Noram I trying to push you away, but if you don't want to know our opinion, why are you asking us? You won't get "the Protestant opinion"--as you yourself ought to know, Protestants are too widely varying in their beliefs to categorise like that. So my best advice is if you want to know what your family members believe, ask them. I doubt you'll find many Orthodox who have studied heresies enough to be able to give you such a detailed explanation as you are requesting.

Obviously he wanted the input and feedback of resident protestants here at OC.net. He wasn't asking you (the Doxies) he was asking us (the Protties on OC.net). Is it really that hard to comprehend? Why are you giving the guy down the road and tried to exclude protestants being sought for input???

A Catholic comes to an Orthodox discussion board, finds some of the resident Protestants, asks them a question about Scripture, and says to his Orthodox hosts, "I don't want your opinion." It's like denying the vast Orthodox majority who visit this site access to a thread on their own forum. That strikes me as rather rude. If ignatius, a Catholic, really wants to dialogue with Protestants about what they believe, I would think that there are other discussion forums outside of OC.net where he doesn't have to cut his hosts out of the conversation.

Some protestants hold to a distinction between this meal and the Passover Seder proper, as obviously does the Orthodox. Some do not.I am one of those who does not. The text itself is clear, this was a passover meal. There is no need to mishandle or wrest it to fit with our presuppositions. The Bible clearly says it was a passover celebration that Jesus had with his disciples on the eve of his crucifixion -- as you so thoroughly cited.

Also, the internal evidence confirms the order of the Seder; i.e. the after supper cup, the blessing of the bread and cup, the hymn after the meal... these, taken together, all indicate the ceremonial process of the Seder. Of which there would be no point if it was not a Seder. That our misleading. No, God is not the author of confusion, and we need not convolute the matter further. If it looks like a seder, taste like a seder, & feels like a seder it's probably because IT WAS a seder.

However, it is understandably confusing when people then read about the sacrificial offerings the following day. And questions crop up about whether there was a lamb or not (as the text it not explicit either way). I understand their need to rationalize an explanation therefore. However, what some forget (or perhaps do not realize) is that the Jewish day starts at sundown (so the day of Passover had indeed already come) and that there was a dual observance of the passover among the Jews. The majority keeping the feast on the twilight following the day of Passover, a minority keeping the feast on the twilight inaugurating the day of Passover. Obviously Jesus used this ambiguity of which twilight to feast on to both keep the feast and to then fulfill it later that day.

« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 05:34:31 PM by Cleopas »

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

To argue from the weakest Gospel to be authoritative seems to contradict the other three, I've never been taught to do that.

"From the weakest Gospel?" Is that really necessary? How about "from the least detailed about the meal" or "from the most ambiguous account IMO?" You're not going to encourage meaningful discussion on the topic with comments like "the weakest Gospel."

Why does John's Gospel trump the other three in your exegesis? I don't understand that...

I suppose John's Gospel gets a lot of respect from the Orthodox because:

1. It starts the earliest ("In the beginning") and ends the latest ("If it is my will that he remain until I come...") of the Gospels (heck, it starts earlier than Genesis).2. It's the Gospel of Love3. It seems to be written to supplement the other accounts, adding in words and actions that were left out by the other Gospels.4. It is well used by the early Church writers and Fathers.5. It focuses on our relationship with God (very ethereal, no? it's why he gets the eagle symbol)

The whole of Scripture should have the same weight shouldn't it?

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I want to know what those with an unbiased objective study of the scriptures think... I know what Catholics say and what Orthodox say... neither seems correct to me so I'm asking Protestants what they think... why is that a problem?

Protestants, unbiased? Bwahahahahahahaha! That's funny!

Tell us another one! Come on! Tell us another one!

Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11

A Catholic comes to an Orthodox discussion board, finds some of the resident Protestants, asks them a question about Scripture, and says to his Orthodox hosts, "I don't want your opinion." It's like denying the vast Orthodox majority who visit this site access to a thread on their own forum. That strikes me as rather rude. If ignatius, a Catholic, really wants to dialogue with Protestants about what they believe, I would think that there are other discussion forums outside of OC.net where he doesn't have to cut his hosts out of the conversation.

Have a pity party, will ya?

Besides, he clarified rather emphatically that he wasn't cutting out Orthodox views or comments, only that he was rather familiar with them and was particularly curious about Protestant views. You are simply making to much of his asking for non-Orthodox input. And, as an aside, it seems quite telling as to the depth of real fraternity you extend to us believers outside the Orthodox church. Yeah, I took it as an affront. You see, Ignatius was not attempting to cut out Orthodox input, only to especially seek out Protestant input. You and Y-man are the ones seeking to cut out input from the likes of me. And why? Because this is a predominately Orthodox board? Then why permit us here in the first place? Like I said, telling...

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

Some protestants hold to a distinction between this meal and the Passover Seder proper, as obviously does the Orthodox. Some do not.I am one of those who does not. The text itself is clear, this was a passover meal. There is no need to mishandle or wrest it to fit with our presuppositions. The Bible clearly says it was a passover celebration that Jesus had with his disciples on the eve of his crucifixion -- as you so thoroughly cited.

Also, the internal evidence confirms the order of the Seder; i.e. the after supper cup, the blessing of the bread and cup, the hymn after the meal... these, taken together, all indicate the ceremonial process of the Seder. Of which there would be no point if it was not a Seder. That our misleading. No, God is not the author of confusion, and we need not convolute the matter further. If it looks like a seder, taste like a seder, & feels like a seder it's probably because IT WAS a seder.

However, it is understandably confusing when people then read about the sacrificial offerings the following day. And questions crop up about whether there was a lamb or not (as the text it not explicit either way). I understand their need to rationalize an explanation therefore. However, what some forget (or perhaps do not realize) is that the Jewish day starts at sundown (so the day of Passover had indeed already come) and that there was a dual observance of the passover among the Jews. The majority keeping the feast on the twilight following the day of Passover, a minority keeping the feast on the twilight inaugurating the day of Passover. Obviously Jesus used this ambiguity of which twilight to feast on to both keep the feast and to then fulfill it later that day.

Hi there Cleopas,

Do you have the break down of the actual Sader Dinner and how does it parallel the evening of the Last Supper? Also, as I pointed out... the institution of the Eucharist seems to happen 'after' this supper... do you see this as a continuance of the Sader or as a 'new' institution all together?

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Nope. It can't. Christ's coming into the world, His Death, and His Resurrection changed existence as we know it - hence, we can't look at the OT without the lenses of the New. The Gospels become for us the Rosetta Stone of the OT, translating God's plan in the language of our lives. It's not to say that all Scripture isn't important - far from it, all scripture IS important. But to hold everything at the same level wouldn't be very, well, Orthodox of us.

Do you have the break down of the actual Sader Dinner and how does it parallel the evening of the Last Supper?

Not handy I don't, but you might try Levittdotcom.

Quote

Also, as I pointed out... the institution of the Eucharist seems to happen 'after' this supper... do you see this as a continuance of the Sader or as a 'new' institution all together?

I actually see the institution of the eucharist happening with the supper. The reference to "after supper" refers again to ceremonial stages of the seder, and helps to indicates which seder cup (the after supper cup, or the 4th in the seder) Christ chose to represent His blood. So, I definitely see it (though designated "after suppe"r) as a continuance of the seder.

However, as an aside, I do not believe the full seder meal or celebration is obligatory for believers (though quite illuminating when seen) -- only those elements thereof which Christ ordains as uniquely referring to Him and His sacrificial offering of Himself as our passover.

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

A Catholic comes to an Orthodox discussion board, finds some of the resident Protestants, asks them a question about Scripture, and says to his Orthodox hosts, "I don't want your opinion." It's like denying the vast Orthodox majority who visit this site access to a thread on their own forum. That strikes me as rather rude. If ignatius, a Catholic, really wants to dialogue with Protestants about what they believe, I would think that there are other discussion forums outside of OC.net where he doesn't have to cut his hosts out of the conversation.

Have a pity party, will ya?

Besides, he clarified rather emphatically that he wasn't cutting out Orthodox views or comments, only that he was rather familiar with them and was particularly curious about Protestant views. You are simply making to much of his asking for non-Orthodox input.

I think you're overlooking his statements that he finds Orthodox responses generally too scripted and biased and therefore unreliable, that he's coming to you and other Protestants because he thinks that only you have a truly unbiased understanding of the Scriptures. This sounds to me like a rejection of what we have to say, a cutting out of Orthodox views or comments. If he doesn't like our answers, what motivation do we have to share them with him?

And, as an aside, it seems quite telling as to the depth of real fraternity you extend to us believers outside the Orthodox church. Yeah, I took it as an affront. You see, Ignatius was not attempting to cut out Orthodox input, only to especially seek out Protestant input. You and Y-man are the ones seeking to cut out input from the likes of me. And why? Because this is a predominately Orthodox board? Then why permit us here in the first place? Like I said, telling...

The simple answer is that this has nothing to do with any desire to limit input from the likes of you, such desire as does not actually exist. We would just simply like it if ignatius would not openly reject Orthodox input on his questions, that if he's going to ask a question soliciting Protestant feedback, he be a bit more welcoming of the points of view of his Orthodox hosts.

Nope. It can't. Christ's coming into the world, His Death, and His Resurrection changed existence as we know it - hence, we can't look at the OT without the lenses of the New. The Gospels become for us the Rosetta Stone of the OT, translating God's plan in the language of our lives. It's not to say that all Scripture isn't important - far from it, all scripture IS important. But to hold everything at the same level wouldn't be very, well, Orthodox of us.

That sound completely reasonable. But are we to interpret the Gospel in a way that we make them contradict one another? I'm sure you would agree, no. Which is why I am inquiring into this problem that I am having. It seems completely 'clear' to me that Luke is stating that the institution of the Holy Eucharist was right after the Passover. I understand that if we are counting days from our Lords death on the Cross to his Resurrection on Sunday Morning every Gospel will not 'add' up. I understand that but it seems pretty clear that John's Gospel lines up with all the others except for the gap between 13:1 and 13:2...

So when I look at the 'rest' of the Gospels, I am convinced with a great deal of certainty that they are all carrying on with the the same Passover.

Now, I'm not Jewish nor do I know how the Sader Dinner is observed but I thought, and correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't this Feast several days? 7 or 8?

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”